Feminism in prehistoric times / primitive culture(189 Posts)
MNHQ have commented on this thread.
Hi. Is it possible in theory that any kind of feminist movement could conceivably have existed in prehistoric times or in any primitive culture? I don't mean matriarchal societies, I mean a feminist movement.
I think social movements of any kind are quite dependent on some form of mass communication. So prior to the printing press / newspapers / widespread literacy I can't see how it would be anything more than the thoughts of a small isolated group?
Apart from that though, do you think a feminist movement would have been considered necessary?
Suggested equality between men and women, yes. A movement (in the modern sense), perhaps not.
What kind of suggested equality? Again we're talking primitive societies.
I don't see why there shouldn't have been feminism. There's always a number of women who see that patriarchy is shit and decide to do something about it.
It was probably never recorded by the male history writers because they feared it could give female readers ideas. Ha!
Was there patriarchy in primitive societies?
In some, certainly. As chimpanzees have, albeit primitive, patriarchal structures, it follows logically that human males would have tried to establish similar systems of male dominance.
Of course, there are also bonobos ...
Fact is, we don't know, because there are no written records.
Considering that there is patriarchy in more or less recently discovered primitive tribes, it certainly is not impossible.
Yes, if you consider feminism to be advocating for women's rights, then it is possible in theory.
Many people in a band might have felt it was important to consider the wellbeing of women in terms of pregnancy, breastfeeding and conception. I would consider that feminism.
In a primitive society, there is no possibility that feminism could ever come about. Neither the perceived need for it, nor the means to do anything with it, even if there was a perceived need.
The reason is because when you're in a primitive society, you can only be efficient and survive if men take on certain tasks and women take on other tasks. It's the natural way. Men have their strengths and women have theirs. Without these roles, you end up with chaos and the extinction of the tribe soon enough.
Over the years, men, due to their natural aptitudes, have developed society to where we are today. As a result, we have efficiency, convenience, comfort, and abundance. Today, many people, even average income people, live more comfortably than many monarchs of the past. That's how far we've progressed thanks to the strengths and efforts of men.
When women are too busy fulfilling their natural roles and simply trying to survive along with men, they have no time for nonsense such as feminism. They do not perceive there to be any injustices because they know that if the roles were swapped, the women would fail miserably at men's tasks, and the men would fail miserably at the women's tasks. Same would happen if everybody tried to do everything. It wouldn't work. That's the natural way, under natural circumstances. This civilization that we have today, nice as it is, is not natural. Not saying it's bad, just not natural. It's a construct created by men and appreciated by all.
Feminism happens when women have it very easy. They start to look at what men are doing and they start to wonder if maybe they can do the same tasks. They also start thinking that it's unfair that they can't do this or that, while the man can. They have the time to do this because men, when they created civilization, ended up creating a very comfortable environment, relatively speaking. They forget that although our environment has changed, the species has not. Men are still better than women at the same things that they have always been better at. Women still have the same strengths that they've always had. We have not evolved. Only our environment has. It is foolish to think that a women and men have the same strengths.
Not only did men create civilization, but they maintain it to this day. They work tirelessly behind the scenes to keep the show going. Not because they're being unfair to women by doing so, but because that's what men do. The truth is this : men are still behaving according to their true natures as they always have done, and the reason is a matter of life and death in that if they don't, we'll be plunged back into the stoneage. Men are not trying to antagonize or insult or oppress women by taking charge when it comes to certain things in society, they are simply following their natural programming, just as women mostly follow their programming in other areas (i.e. maternal instinct). It can't be changed. It's the way it is and no one can change it. It will never stop. In 1,000 years it will still be the same way.
Feminism can only exist where there's abundance. Abundance created by men. It's easy to feel oppressed when you have a lot. Notice how poor people are usually appreciative of whatever they have. And notice how rich people, by that I just mean people who have it handed to them on a plate, tend to be entitled. Women have it handed on a plate, and feminists are entitled.
If we were to be plunged back into the stoneage, and if for some reason men were too slow to fill the role of provider and protector, women would beg men to help them, and in return they would promise to fulfill their roles as nurturers and keepers of the home. It would be back to nature, immediately. Why? Because we have not evolved.
Notice how feminists don't bother campaigning or complaining about the fact that there are few women miners, or sewage workers, or all manner of other unpleasant, harsh and demanding jobs. Even in the midst of feminist brainwashing, they can't do it. They want to play at being men, but without everything that comes with it. Notice how angry feminists got when Trump won. They thought people didn't vote for the hag because she's a woman. No. It's simply because they didn't feel she was the person for the job. But feminists are too far into their fantasy world to see that. To them, it's injustice or oppression or something. They just wanted a woman there to feel like women can do anything a man can (except work down a MANhole - there's a reason why it's called that).
Whenever a feminist complains about some perceived oppression, she should try imagining living on a desert island, with 100 women and 100 men. She should imagine that the men all want to sit around chatting, or only helping with domestic chores rather than hunting, fishing and building shelters. Then she should imagine how angry she would be when it dawns on her that all the women are going to have to do all of those tasks. There was an experiment done a few years back where there were women on an island and men on another. The men cooperated, and got things done. The women argued, and doomed themselves to death, or they would have if the men had not come over to their island to sort things out. That's nature at work. Be careful what you wish for, feminists, because if we end up in such a primitive scenario, you'll be the first to drop to your knees and beg men to save you.
Feminism can only exist when there's sufficient abundance and comfort for entitled women to bitch and moan about oppression and injustice, while completely ignoring nature at play, i.e. men getting on with doing what they're supposed to do. All women should be eternally grateful and humbled by the amazing things that men have done for everybody.
And if a woman happened to be the inventor of the shoelace, I'm afraid that simply doesn't compare with keeping the lights on.
I have some doubts about your knowledge of anthropology OP.
Also, the ability to be succinct is a virtue.
It's hard to choose which part of your eloquent post to admire the most but I think it's the fact that you credit men with 'efficiency' and yet, you inefficiently tried to get women on this board to make your 'argument' for you. Then, when they didn't (because, and I'm just guessing here, with my maternally programmed women's mind, your argument is neither factual nor consistent) you released a rather inefficient tirade of nonsense onto your screen.
It's a zero from me.
OP in you long post, you ask us all to imagine a few things.
If you want us to do that maybe you, on your part, read the series "Clan of the Cave Bear"?
Ayla knocks men's abilities into a cocked hat.
Do you feel better now op? Must be good to get it off your chest.
Gosh. Gibberish sweetie, but carry on won't you.
I'm a doctor of engineering despite being a (now expecting) woman... does that mean I'm a useless female unable to break my "evolution"?
Ahahaha. I should have known. What a pity, I thought the OP was genuinely interested in debate.
(I only read the first two sentences of that last post. I didn't miss anything of importance, did I?)
OP wrote - "if a woman happened to be the inventor of the shoelace, I'm afraid that simply doesn't compare with keeping the lights on."
Women have invented many things, often world-changing inventions , but women are often not recognised as the inventors, because, for many years, men made it illegal for women apply for patents.
men made it illegal for women to apply for patents.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.